On 09/16/2013 02:36 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 09/13/2013 07:04 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
[...]
Replacing it would either a) replicate its functionality almost
completely or b) spread duplicate regex code all over the place.


I'd go for b; spreading this code:
     import re
     some_regex = re.compile('some.*regex$')
     ...
     assert some_regex.search(x)
instead of:
     from wherever import Fuzzy
     warm_fuzzy = Fuzzy('some.*regex$')
     ...
     assert x == warm_fuzzy
all over the place is fine in my book. And you can even, say, add custom
flags to the regex without complicating shared code.

Right, and it's all duplicate. Just look in his patch how many times
fuzzy.digits is used. What's going to happen is someone is going to come
along later and say "Geez, we have a ton of some_regex =
re.compile('\d+'), I should make a macro thinger out of this" and we're
back where we started.

The first two lines only need to be there once, in the other files you can just import some_regex, the same way you can import the Fuzzy object.

The rest of Fuzzy functionality consists of strict type checking (which
isn't really necessary in integration tests), and the ability to call
arbitrary callables (which is just the scope creep I was talking about).
By the way, in current tests these features are hardly ever used in
combination.

Here we agree. I'd prefer to keep Fuzzy limited to just simple regex and
woudln't object to delegating the other enforcement to something else.

The type checking is actually a big part of Fuzzy functionality, since in the API we want all non-binary strings to be unicode and not str.

That isn't to say that Fuzzy isn't being abused, but that is also the
responsibility of the reviewers to be strict about.

Then perhaps I'm too strict, but I say that using it outside of the
declarative tests is abuse.
Especially if it takes six patches with hundreds of changed lines to
repurpose Fuzzy for integration tests (but that's not part of "-1 to the
idea").

That is hardly fair. The bulk of the patches just change imports.

The patches make Fuzzy enforce basestring type by default, instead of unicode. But in the IPA API we normally want only unicode, so almost all *usages* of Fuzzy are then changed to enforce unicode.

That is bad because IMO Fuzzy is specific to the declarative API tests and should have defaults made for them.

So to summarize, I think:

- Fuzzy should remain as a regex should remain as a regex shortcut
- The non-regex features can be moved elsewhere
- I don't really have a handle on how he intended to use this for
integration testing, so I don't have an opinion here. But I'd expect
that most integration tests depend more on return values than comparing
against "known good".

We're getting closer to an agreement :)
- Fuzzy should remain as a regex should remain as a regex shortcut *for our declarative tests which need type-checking* - The non-regex *and non-typechecking* features can be moved elsewhere (they actually are: assert_deepequal allows plain callables, it's just a matter of using that in the tests and then removing the functionality from Fuzzy) - In integration testing, if we do need to check the output of commands, we don't really care about the bytes/unicode distinction, so the re module is enough.

--
PetrĀ³

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to